Kenyon Observer Kenyon Observer the the
September 25, 2012 January 30, 2013
Sodexo, a Story:
James Neimeister|page 6
In Defense of Twitter A Brief Essay on Brevity
Yoni Wilkenfeld | page 10
Kenyon’s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine
Kenyon Observer the
January 30, 2013
The Kenyon Observer January 30, 2013
5 From the Editors
Editors-in-Chief Gabriel Rom and Jon Green
Cover Story
Managing Editor Megan Shaw
yoni wilkenfeld
10 In Defense of Twitter
A Brief Essay On Brevity
Online Editor Yoni Wilkenfeld
jacob fass
6 Women in Combat
A Welcome Shift By the US Military stewart pollock
Featured Contributors Ryan Baker, Jacob Fass, Andrew Gabel, Stewart Pollock and Yoni Wilkenfeld
8 Ukraine’s Messy Politics
Layout/Design Sofia Mandel
A Fledgling Democracy Struggles to Get On Its Feet
Illustrations Nick Nazmi
andrew gabel
12 On Syria
The Time for Talk is Over
Faculty Advisor Professor Fred Baumann and Professor Pamela Jensen
ryan baker
15 ‘Murica
And Other Fallacies Kenyon 5-on-5 Intramural Basketball Pre-Season Power Rankings
The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College. The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and lettersto-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to tko@kenyon.edu
Cover Art by Nick Nazmi
5
FROM THE EDITORS
Dear Prospective Reader, In our second issue of the semester, the Kenyon Observer takes on issues both near to and far from home. With content covering the current and the cultural, it is our hope that the arguments presented here will spark discussion away from our pages. In our cover story, Yoni Wilkenfeld offers a spirited defense of Twitter’s potential for social good. Also featured in this issue, Jacob Fass lauds the American military’s recent decision to allow women in combat roles, Stewart Pollock sheds light on political tumult in Ukraine, Andrew Gabel calls for American military intervention in Syria and Ryan Baker reflects on his time spent abroad to dissect European perceptions of American culture. As always, it is our goal to encourage spirited discourse with the knowledge that no consensus can be reached without prior debate. We invite readers to engage with our publication by not only reading our work, but also by responding through letters and full-length articles of their own. Your editors, Gabriel Rom and Jon Green
6
JACOB FASS
Women in Combat A WELCOME SHIFT BY THE US MILITARY When Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women would be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military, shattering a barrier that had been in place for the entirety of American military history, there was a conspicuous silence. A decade ago, this change would likely have been accompanied by a furious and sustained backlash. Like President Clinton’s 1993 attempt to lift the ban of gays and lesbians serving openly, it would have put the President in direct opposition to the leaders of the armed forces; it would have been a political disaster. Certain organizations and members of Congress raised concerns about the policy, but the vast majority of the military and general public remained
as they did two years ago in
“Don ’t A sk D on ’t Tell,” policy makers
repealing
Don ’t
seem to be codifying changes that have already occurred on the front lines . silent. Panetta’s decision has been greeted with emotions ranging from acceptance to enthusiasm. Polls show that the the American people overwhelmingly support the change. What turned an issue that powered the culture wars into such a non-controversial policy shift?
In this case, as they did two years ago in repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” policy makers seem to be codifying changes that have already occurred on the front lines. In our current wars, in which the definition of a combat zone is vague at best, women have informally and consistently served in combat roles. As military police, intelligence officers, military photographers, medics and logistical technicians, female soldiers have long been embedded with troops on the front lines. When the bullets fly they are forced to respond to crises in the same way as their male counterparts. In these situations, which have occurred almost daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have proved their skill and fortitude to the men they serve with. Opponents of the change argue that there is a difference between incidental combat, in which women circumstantially respond to violence, and the sustained task of hunting down an enemy in a permanent combat unit. They claim that women are physically weaker than men, that the presence of women in units will provide unwanted distractions, that men will feel obligated to protect women instead of charging ahead with their missions. Mostly, they argue, as many did with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” that the military exists to fight and win wars; not to serve as as a testing ground for social engineering. They feel that these changes will be a distraction in wartime, undermining the combat readiness of our forces. Obviously the military exists to fight and win wars. But this change, by allowing the military to use the best talent from all corners of society, will
“Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.” George Will
7
only further that goal. In order to become a combat soldier one must go through rigorous training and pass intense physical fitness examinations; most men and women alike are unable to meet such standards, why shut out the women who are up to the task? The experiences of nations like Israel and Canada, which have long allowed women to serve in combat, shows the complications of carrying out this change are hardly insurmountable. As Canadian Brigadier General Shelia Hellstrom said in a recent interview, “People are bringing up the issues we had to deal with then. We have shown that we can do it. What was a contentious change in the 1990’s has since faded from the national consciousness and female Canadian officers commanded American troops during NATO missions in Iraq and Afghanistan without incident.” There is no cultural reason that our experience in America will be dramatically different. Indeed, the positive reaction in recent days is a byproduct of changes in our own culture. Just as growing acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans made it seem ridiculous that talented soldiers, airmen and marines were being turned away because of their sexual orientation, attitudes toward the status of women in the workplace have changed in recent years as well. These attitudes have even seeped into
the United States Military, one of the most conservative of institutions. It is no accident that the driving force for the policy change came from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey instead of President Obama. The military itself has recognized shifting realities and been forced to deal with them. The success of this new policy is not inevitable. The military will have to adopt a rigorous gender neutral fitness standard and make certain crucial decisions about the integration and setup of certain combat units. But, as the repeal of DADT came and went without incident, we should have confidence in the professionalism of the armed forces and their ability to manage the change, which will be of enormous benefit to the country. It will allow combat units to take the best snipers, tank drivers and paratroopers, regardless of gender, and put them in positions where their skills can best be utilized. It will be an incredible opportunity for all female members of the armed forces, who will now be able to advance to high ranking positions in the military without the stigma of not having served in a combat units. These changes will not only be a boon to women serving our nation in uniform right now, they will be a source of greater security and justice for our nation for years to come.TKO
Nite Bites Café
Peirce Pub Sunday - Thursday 10pm-1am Delivery: 740-427-6300 Menu: facebook.com/nitebitescafe “Nite Bites ... A little Taste of Kenyon” Advertisement
“One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time” Robert Kennedy
8
STEWART POLLOCK
Ukraine’s Messy Politics A FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY STRUGGLES TO GET ON ITS FEET
Ukraine occupies a unique position in European politics, standing as it does between Russia and the West and serving historically as a buffer between the two. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, as a democratic and increasingly nationalistic state, it has been devoted to maintaining its independence from all of the blocs which surround it. Yet the economic woes that grip the rest of the continent have not left Ukraine unscathed. In fact, a weak government and poor fiscal planning mean that Ukraine may be particularly vulnerable to a new recession. The country’s recent parliamentary elections seem to have compounded its economic woes, adding political uncertainty to a situation already marred by continued bad economic news. Eastern Europe’s largest country has never been known for the strength or accountability of its political institutions, but with the Ukrainian economy teetering on the brink of collapse, the weak coalition that emerged from those elections, led by Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, has its work cut out for it. The credit ratings agency Moody’s cited “poor policy predictability,” among other factors, in its recent decision to downgrade Ukraine’s credit status. A lack of consistent fiscal policy from the Azarov government is seen as one of the main reasons for continued pessimism about the country’s financial situation. The weakening of the Ukrainian hyrvnia against the dollar, as well as dwindling foreign currency reserves, and external debts totaling around $10 billion, have provided solid economic backing to such fears. Although the government theoretically has the power to implement reforms and patch up the economy, the circumstances
of its election undermine its ability to do so. Mykola (Nikolai) Azarov has been Prime Minister of Ukraine since 2010, when Victor Yanukovich, whose campaign Azarov ran, defeated Yulia Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko has since been charged with a variety of corruption-relate crimes and imprisoned in Kiev, stoking fears about the political motivation behind her imprisonment, and loud claims by her supporters that Tymoshenko was framed. President Yanukovich, who previously served as Prime Minister from 2002 to 2004, is notable for having lost the 2005 presidential election to Viktor Yuschenko, following a series of protests
“W ith
the
U krainian
econ -
omy teetering on the brink of collapse , the weak co alition that emerged from those
elections ,
led
by
P rime M inister M ykola A z arov , has its work cut out for it . known as the “Orange Revolution.” His return, combined with Tymoshenko’s controversial imprisonment, has cast an especially inauspicious aura over the new government. Former President Yuschenko, formerly the poster boy for political optimism in Ukraine following the Orange Revolution, provides one of the most
“Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.” Mao Tse-Tung
9
dramatic examples of how vicious Ukrainian political culture has become. In 2004, he was left disfigured after he ingested large amounts of dioxin, in what he claims was an assassination attempt by his opponents. The resulting burns and pockmarks on his face have been a continual reminder of how ugly Ukraine’s politics have become, as well as giving him the appearance of a Bond villain. The coalition that currently rules Ukraine’s parliament is formed from an uneasy alliance of Yanukovich and Azarov’s Party of Regions and several smaller parties, including the Communist Party. Formed Christmas Eve of last year, the Azarov-led government has even less of a mandate than the first. In order to get the various disparate elements of his coalition to agree to make necessary reforms to prevent a recession, Azarov will have to get his own support base in order. And he is running out of time to do so: The nation’s foreign currency reserves fell 5.4 percent in November, down to $25 billion. The hyrvnia continues to fall, with some forecasts even suggesting that the currency will be worth a tenth of the dollar by the end of the year. The likelihood of Ukraine falling in to a Greek-style debt crisis grows more and more plausible. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s representatives continue to bicker and fight, both figuratively and literally. A brawl between legislators on the floor the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, was caught on television, showing suit-clad bureaucrats grappling with each other and putting Ukrainian political incompetence and pettiness on display for the whole world to see. The dysfunctional nature of Ukrainian politics stems partially from its history following the breakup of the Soviet Union. In 1991, Ukraine held its first election as a republic, following its official independence the previous year. What had originally been trumpeted as one of the first expressions of Ukrainian independence in centuries soon collapsed in the face of a harsh economic and political reality. Corruption and a lack of government organization resulted in an eight-year recession, which was among the deepest affecting former Soviet territories. Matching this economic uncertainty was a political system marred by rampant corruption. A survey of Ukrainians in direct contact with the government done by Chatham House found over sixty percent admitted to complicity in some form of official corruption; nearly twenty-five percent acknowledged taking bribes. Huge amounts of government funds derived from Ukraine’s steel industry were embezzled, and according to cables leaked by Wikileaks, U.S. officials familiar with Ukraine referred to the country, and particularly Yuschenko’s government, as a “kleptocracy.” In 2012, the Kiev Post
exuberantly reported that Transparency International no longer considered Ukraine to be the third-most corrupt country on Earth, as it had in 2011. Instead, Ukraine was only the 11th most corrupt; second-most corrupt in Eastern Europe. Such dubious honors hardly
“H aving recently tak en a $1.25 billion E uro bond , U kraine will be hard pressed to find any more help from the private sec tor .” speak highly of either Mr. Azarov or Mr. Yanukovich. All of this means that it is unlikely that the IMF will extend a much needed loan to Ukraine, which the country’s leaders had hoped to use to build up its currency reserves and prevent further weakening of the hyrvnia into 2013. Azarov has publically dismissed fears about the loan, telling major Ukrainian media at a press conference in December that Ukraine had done fine without IMF credits over the past two years, and doesn’t need them for 2013. This seems to be little more than typical public overconfidence, however, as Ukraine’s leaders have desperately been searching for an alternate lender to give them the necessary funds should the IMF refuse to extend the new loan. Having recently taken a $1.25 billion Eurobond, Ukraine will be hard pressed to find any more help from the private sector. For the IMF to take another chance on Ukraine, Azarov’s government must press for politically unpopular but necessary changes, like higher gas prices for Ukrainian households and exchange rate liberalization. But in the current political climate, it is very unlikely these steps can or will be taken, and therefore hope for a new IMF loan remains slim. Ukraine’s biggest problem in the short term is its volatile and leaky economy. But in the long term, fighting corruption, and the public institutions that support it, should be the Azarov government’s biggest concern. President Yanukovich has frequently spoken of a commitment to joining the EU and distancing Ukraine from its large, autocratic neighbor, Russia. But before his country should even be considered for membership, his government in Kiev must do a better job of providing evidence that it is not just a continuation of the crony state which has ruled Ukraine for the past decade. If it can do this, then and only then may Ukraine be able to rise out of the bog of corruption and apathy that has engulfed the country. TKO
“Every politician should have been born an orphan and remain a bachelor.” Lady Bird Johnson
10
YONI WILKENFELD
In Defense of Twitter A BRIEF ESSAY ON BREVITY “Shallow thinking.” “Death of the writer.” “The din of a giant turd-covered silicon apiary.” These are a few choice examples of the kind words reserved for Twitter by some of today’s cultural critics. Twitter, apparently, is not only “bad for writing” and “bad for journalism,” but also “bad for our brains” and “bad for relationships.” And a personal favorite: “its very existence undermines our otherwise rational and mostly progressive society.” Few would deny that Twitter can be obnoxious. Until very recently, Justin Bieber could call himself the most popular tweeter of all time. Kim Kardashian and Charlie Sheen each have more followers than Peggy Noonan, Paul Krugman and the U.S. State Department combined. And, unfortunately, Twitter has given rise to the “crotch shot” as career-ender, as former Congressman Anthony Weiner can attest. These facts are so grating that one is tempted to join the critics and denounce Twitter as the downfall of civilization. But stupidity is hardly unique to the Internet Age. That the site is home to photos of Jose Canseco dressed as Lady Gaga is no more damning for Twitter than is the existence of The National Enquirer for ink and paper. The more legitimate criticisms of Twitter fall mainly into three categories: First, that the site’s strict 140-character limit on every tweet has dumbed down our use of language. Second, that the democratic nature of Twitter, which sends popular or “trending” topics and tweets to the top of each user’s feed, appeals to the broad and base tastes of the masses. And third, that the collapse of technological barriers between amateur journalists and their would-be audiences, as accelerated by Twitter, is bad news for the quality of public discourse. The truth is that these three qualities are the greatest strengths of Twitter— and, together, a boon for journalism, intellectual progress and liberal democracy. Twitter’s most unique quality, a 140-character maxi-
mum for each tweet, is also its most obvious candidate for criticism. Users have developed an ad-hoc vocabulary to cheat the character limit. Entries on Twittonary.com, an online “dictionary” of such lingo, range from the obvious (FYI) to the esoteric (ICYMI: in case you missed it) and the bizarre (OMB: oh my Bieber). These corruptions have been upsetting grammarians since the dawn of the Internet, but Twitter has only increased the worries that e-language is making us incapable of forming coherent thoughts. Even more worrying is that the 140-character limit might be too stingy to allow for tweets of any depth or seriousness. But there is a rich history in the arts and letters of great wisdom found in small packages. In The Word in a Phrase, journalist James Geary leads a tour of aphorisms through the ages, from their centrality in Buddhism and Confucianism to their aristocratic status in Enlightenment France and England. Twitter’s emphasis on concise witticisms is the just latest in a long legacy of social encouragement towards brevity. Nothing is sweeter, for the tweeter, than a zinging jab or insightful one-liner. Of course, not all tweets are profound enough for the likes of Lao Tzu or Samuel Johnson. But this is not a necessary consequence of the medium. Constraints in and of themselves do nothing to inhibit thoughtfulness—in fact, they can even encourage it. Twitter’s character limit forces authors and journalists to distill the very heart of their articles into a compelling concentrate, replacing the “lede” of print journalism with a shorter and more accessible form. On January 27, 2012, The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, tweeted the following alongside a link to an article supporting an expensive, controversial new fighter jet: “The F-35 is 1.6% of defense budget. By comparison, 1.6% is half the avg family’s budget share dedicated to clothing.” A provocative teaser on a political controversy of national importance, accompanied by a link to the fully developed argument—all in 97 characters, exposed to millions of new eyeballs who wouldn’t ordinarily pay mind to an aca-
“In America the President reigns for four years, and journalism governs forever and ever. “ Oscar Wilde
11
demic policy paper. The character limit is the informal version of a scientific journal’s “abstract” section. It is simply good practice, and it forces commentators and opinion-makers to say what they mean, and quickly. If they can’t, Twitter’s democratic nature ensures they won’t last long. Like every social structure, Twitter has a currency, and wealth in the Twittersphere is measured in “favorites,” “followers” and “retweets.” Users can follow their friends and family, as on Facebook, but also their cultural idols and like-minded thinkers. Since each user’s actions are seen instantaneously by her followers, each user is made mediator between her real-life community and the world of ideas, with a social incentive to retweet and favorite whichever tweets carry the relevant status for her social group. In many groups, though sure-
“T he
upshot is that witty ,
sharp , and critical think ing
spreads
D arwinian
virally
in
a
race for social
networking cachet .” ly not all, this will mean retweeting what strikes them as provocative, insightful, clever or passionate— in short, anything that further cultivates their online persona as an interesting person worthy of “following.” While this might seem a petty vehicle for intellectual discourse, the upshot is that witty, sharp and critical thinking spreads virally in a Darwinian race for social networking cachet. This social fitness of bright ideas has helped spark a resurgence of long form journalism. In a feature for Adweek last year, Emma Bazilian wrote about the particularly “high-brow connotation” of long form journalism, encouraged by the popularity of websites like Longform.org and Instapaper. The solitary and rarefied nature of traditional book-reading had long encouraged readers to keep their thoughts to themselves; the stereotypical “curling up with a book by the fireplace.” The social nature of electronic reading, on the other hand, has globalized the book club, opening up millions of new readers to each other’s ideas and recommendations. By forcing journalists to say what they mean and say it quickly, Twitter is good for journalism. By employing a Darwinian model which rewards users for looking smart in front of their friends, Twitter is good for intellectual discourse. But there may be a still nobler role for Twitter in today’s society: the advancement of Millian liberalism. A godfather of liberal democracy, John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty for a radical freedom of opinions.
He thought that our beliefs are justified only insofar as we are capable of assessing them, and that our powers of assessment must be constantly practiced against new and controversial ideas. Thus censorship is the enemy of this kind of practice. While Americans have long been repulsed by formal censorship of the media, the traditional press maintains worryingly high barriers to entry. A salesdriven model forces traditional media outlets to choose between the pursuit of a mythical “independent voter” or appeals to the ratings-rich partisan zealot. The result is the very opposite of Mill’s “marketplace of ideas.” Marginal voices—whether in terms of class or ideology—are left out of the conversation in favor of what sells. Twitter has driven a large bulldozer through the barriers of the traditional press. Like much of online media, Twitter has reduced the cost of entry for new users to near-zero; anyone with an Internet connection can send a tweet. But, unlike much of online media, Twitter has shied away from a reliance on sponsored posts, advertising or expensive tools like “optimization” which many companies use to boost their hits on Google. Twitter is a perfect democracy, where the weak and powerful alike can equally appeal to standards of taste, humor and intellect for success. This is most relevant during the coverage of large-scale, newsworthy events abroad, when it is especially difficult for the traditional press to bring a nuanced account to American audiences. From the the protests in London at the 2009 G-20 Summit to the Arab Spring and the 2012 flooding in Japan, Twitter has time and again supplemented mainstream media coverage with a mosaic of snapshots from active participants. This is especially powerful in war-zones, where journalists face particular difficulties of access and accuracy. During the conflict between Hamas and Israel last November, Israelis and Palestinians used Twitter extensively to report missile launchings, air bombings, casualties, and—most importantly—to correct, often with photographic evidence, inaccurate reports in the media. Breaking the monopoly of traditional media voices includes eyes and ears formerly excluded and enriches our understanding of the world around us. Like every tool, Twitter will be what we make of it; as the novelist William Gibson once said, “technologies are morally neutral until we apply them.” Left to their own devices, tweeters will no doubt use the site for ignoble, unhelpful or annoying purposes. The character limit will continue to give rise to ungrammatical neologisms, and Kanye West will always have more followers than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But, if we use it wisely, Twitter can help journalism survive the death of print, open our ears to alienated voices and make nerdiness seem cool in the age of social media.TKO
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo Da Vinci
12
ANDREW GABEL
On Syria THE TIME FOR TALK IS OVER On June 21, 2012, Col. Hassan Hamada of the Syrian Air Force defected in a MIG-21 fighter jet, flying from his home country to neighboring Jordan where he requested asylum. As the Syrian government frantically sought the aircraft’s return, shocking details emerged. Sources close to the event claim that, upon inspection by the Jordanian military, the plane was found to have been retrofitted with a remote-control system and, chillingly, modified to carry and deploy chemical weapons. These assertions are, as of yet, unconfirmed officially by both sides. But if they are true, they would go a long way to explaining why a government in crisis, facing an armed insurrection and teetering on the brink of collapse, would consider a single, obsolete aircraft (a model introduced by the Soviet Union in 1959) to be of such vital national importance. Furthermore, such a revelation would support the conclusion drawn by U.S. military analysts who believe that the movement observed at Syrian chemical weapon caches signals the preparation for their use against rebel strongholds. The circumstantial evidence alone implying that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons against its own citizens is strong and, for many, persuasive. Yet, regrettably, such evidence appears to be circumstantial no longer. The recent leak of a previously-secret State Department wire on January 16th, 2013 all but confirms that “Agent 15” was used by AlAssad loyalists during a December 23rd attack on the town of Homs. Agent 15 (also known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate) is a military-grade nerve agent that acts as an inhibitor at receptor sites in smooth muscle, exocrine glands and neuron cell bodies located in the central nervous system and in the brain. It is considered so dangerous, and its use so unethical, that the United States military destroyed its stockpiles in 1989. But
this apparently has not stopped the Al-Assad regime from using it, indiscriminately, against military and civilian targets alike. If such a weapon was in fact used, it would represent the crossing of a critical threshold the Obama administration set for itself when President Obama declared during an August 12th, 2012 press conference that, “We have communicated in no uncertain terms…that [the use of chemical weapons] is a red line for us and that there would be enormous
“O ne
only has to ask the
free and sovereign people of
K osovo ,
once an embat -
tled minority living in con -
S erbian death squads , whether the U nited S tates can be a force for good in the world .” stant fear of
consequences if we start seeing… the use of chemical weapons.” If this statement was anything more than empty saber-rattling, then it is time to match action with words. More than 60,000 Syrians have perished since the Arab Spring began, according to the most recent figures released by the United Nations. That is more than 20 times the number of deaths on September 11th, over 40 times the number of Americans who died on D-Day and a number that exceeds all American losses during the entire Vietnam War (in less than 1/5 of the time). It is an astronomically high number. Speaking to CNN, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
“It is better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past.” von Clausewitz
13
Navi Pillay called the mass slaughter “shocking” while lamenting the fact that the world’s great powers “fiddle at the edges while Syria burns”. Rupert Colville, a spokesman for the U.N. also speaking to CNN, echoed this sentiment stating that there is “not a shadow of doubt now that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed”. What is becoming clear to intelligence experts, international bodies and observers on the ground is that the conflict is escalating. Without foreign intervention, the recent eruption of violence will continue and expand as Syria descends into chaos. The United States has a very simple choice: it can sit back and watch a country’s blood-soaked implosion or it can do something about it. Now, the United States has neither the will nor the capacity to be everywhere in the world at once. Past experiences, such as the disastrous effort to help Somalia in the early 1990s (portrayed vividly in the movie Black Hawk Down) illustrate how difficult it can be to auspiciously inject oneself into a complicated civil war. Furthermore, recent history has shown an American public and political class only selectively interested in preventing mass carnage. Shamefully, the United States watched passively from the sidelines as hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered in Rwanda and Darfur. On the other hand, there are shining examples of American intervention in the defense of an oppressed and persecuted people. These include the successful efforts to stop the genocides in Bosnia starting in ’92 and Yugoslavia in ‘98. One only has to ask the free and sovereign people of Kosovo, once an embattled minority living in constant fear of Serbian death squads, whether the United States can be a force for good in the world. In 1995, the U.S. overthrew a Haitian military regime that had been installed by a coup d’état. This endeavor ultimately allowed for the free and fair election of Prime Minister Jean-Bertrand Aristide in an operation universally praised for its success. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, for all the difficulties those conflicts have entailed, there are no more mass graves or stoned women hanging from the diving boards of emptied swimming pools. This is not to argue in favor of unlimited foreign intervention; only that, if properly conceived and executed, much can be accomplished through the application of American strength and leadership. There are no doubt limits to what the United States can do and these limits need to be acknowledged. America cannot just rush into every country in which a civilian has been killed at the hands of a thuggish government. Yet, in the case of Syria, when it has taken place on such a massive scale and with no end in sight, it is incumbent upon a country such as the
United States to call upon its significant advantages to try to stop it. The alleged use of chemical weapons by government forces represents a haunting prelude to what may soon be happening on a much wider scale. Let me be clear, intervention does not necessarily mean large numbers of U.S. ground troops. U.S. airpower, used in concert with Special Forces teams and intelligence assets, was put to devastating effect in Libya. A similar “light footprint” approach, if applied to Syria, could save countless lives. The hard truth is that if America does nothing, no one will. Russia and China both have a strong economic interest in seeing the Al-Assad regime survive (hence why, as permanent members on the U.N. Security Council, they veto all action meant to weaken the Syrian government) while Western allies such as France and Britain are alone too weak, their militaries savaged by decades of cuts and neglect. Therefore, in the end, the fate of the Syrian people rests in the hands of the United States. In 1988 Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to gas the Iraqi town of Halabja, home to thousands of Kurds whom he considered to be a threat to his base of power. America looked the other way in the vain hope that by ignoring these events abroad it would not be affected by them. Three years later, U.S. forces were fighting the Iraqi Army on the field of battle in the opening act of a saga that would span two decades and involve two wars, a bloody occupation and an ambiguous future. It is not clear what all the ramifications of U.S. intervention would have been in a 1988 Iraq or what they will be in Syria today. Immense thought should be put into what a post-Assad Syria would and should look like. Yet, with every passing day, the U.S. becomes more marginalized within the opposition forces. For every moment that is wasted through inaction, more Syrians die. Furthermore, it demonstrates that simply ignoring an enemy today does not necessarily preclude one from having to fight him tomorrow. The quintessential question of the conflict is this: if 60,000 deaths are not enough to warrant intervention, what is? 80,000? 100,000? Is there any limit to what Bashir Al-Assad can inflict upon the civilian population of a country he presumes to be his own? If so, then why wait for another 30,000 deaths to act? How many innocent lives should the U.S. and its allies sacrifice in order to appease their collective instinct for inertia? Up until now, the U.S. has been trading lives for time. But with the specter of chemical weapons now looming over hostilities, the clock is running out. If action is to be taken in defense of the Syrian people, in defense of the values upon which this country was founded and in defense of the values for which it has fought for in the past, then the time is now. TKO
“We who fail to prevent [wars] must share the guilt for the dead” Omar N. Bradley
14
Advertisement
15
RYAN BAKER
‘Murica AND OTHER FALLACIES “Zee problem I ‘ave wit ze Americans ze most is I think zey are very, uhmm, ignorant? Arrogant? One of zose words. I am not sure.” This, as far as I gathered over my fall semester abroad, is the bread and butter of French small talk with Americans: the finer points of international stereotypes. The dynamic of these conversations is always interesting, not because of their content but because of the characters who are always so eager to engage in them. This particular individual, a relatively inebriated university student, was even more distracting than the words he was butchering. He held a Heineken in one hand, a loosely gripped cigarette in the other and wildly gestured with every syllable. But what really distracted me was the picture of Lil Wayne smoking a joint on his hoodie and his Minnesota Wild snapback hat. Really? The Wild? He wants to buy a NHL hat and he picks the Wild? At this point in my abroad experience, the ironic juxtaposition of my new friend’s comment and his clothing was a dull joke. The spirit of anti-Americanism in Europe is at odds with itself, and this conflict is readily apparent in its youth. The perception of Americans is one part jealousy and one part disdain. Most interestingly, this odd combination of admiration and disgust seems to have been brought on by American cultural exports that everyone loves to hate. The most unfortunate example, making me cringe every time I told someone where I was from, plagued my steps for four months: “OH! New Jersey like ze Jersey Shore!” At first it was easy to laugh such a reaction off; after a while it became a constant reminder of just how pervasive American culture has become around the globe. I found it difficult to blame those who resented America for giving them The Jersey Shore. Yet, for every European who told me how trashy The Jersey Shore is, another would recommend Geordie Shore, the UK version that everyone insists is better. Why do people love to judge and disdain American
cultural trends in consumerism, mass media or entertainment, and then proceed to adopt those very same trends into their own ways of life? The answer is in the clichés we always hear in our own country about what the idea of America is actually supposed to mean: “You can be who you want to be.” This kind of individual freedom is the premise that our country was founded upon. At the time it was also something that, while not unheard of, had never been attempted on a large scale before. This is one of the reasons for the ambiguous love-hate persona: While the allure of America springs from its youth, so does the feeling of resentment. More than that, the freedom with which American society has evolved has created the beautiful monster that is our “culture.” We have all been raised to question tradition, root for the underdog and believe in the pursuit of individual happiness. However, without the defining structure of societal stigmas and taboos that are more prominent elsewhere in the world, our society has aged faster. America adopted values that reflected more of our individual wants and less of our moderating traditions. When you turn on MTV, the shows you see are not there because they were arbitrarily picked as quality programming. They are there because American youth enjoys watching TV shows about people getting drunk and going to crazy parties, fighting with their exes or being sixteen and pregnant. So while these values may not be high-minded, the reasons we have them in the first place are. In a way, this makes the perception of America easier to understand. I might not like LMFAO, but if I were French and didn’t really know them very well and someone told me they were all about partying, I could probably be convinced to. In the end, the conflict of the American image is one that is not only understandable, but also unavoidable. So, looking at my counterpart in front of me, I gave him the only response I really could: “I guess so. You know the Wild are trash, right dude? Vraiment. Le merde.” TKO
“It is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Kenyon 5-on-5 Intramural Basketball PRE-SEASON POWER RANKINGS 1. Eric’s Team A lineup stacked with ex-varsity players has the talent to go the distance, but it remains to be seen how they will handle the transition to the varied style of play in the IM leagues. With chemistry at a premium, will they go the way of the ’92 Dream Team or the 2012-2013 Lakers?
2. Katz’s Pajamas Led by the finesse of team namesake, Dan Katz, the physical post presence of Kolin Sullivan and the mind games of Stephen Raithel, Katz’s Pajamas will be a handful for any team they come across.
3. The Swisher Sweets The “Three Towers” of Isaac Jay, Dan Kipp and Corey Barber-Bockelman will Image Courtesy of Creative Commons be relied on heavily to carry this team. With no seniors, this tight-knit squad that has been together for three years can afford another to build for success.
4. Joe’s Johnson This veteran squad relies on solid fundamentals and runs through the savvy play of Griffin Moore at the point and the Nowitzki-esque threat of Danny Rosenberg at the high post. Anticipation abounds, as this team will seek to answer questions about how well their two off-season acquistions, Daniel Glaser and Josh Bloom, will fit into their well-established system. The X-Factor here is Alex Kieselstein; coming off of a pre-season ankle injury, his recovery is crucial to this team’s success.
5. The Get Money Boys Comprised mainly of varsity soccer players, this athletic squad will be tested early as they adjust to using their hands. Without a goalie this otherwise fundamentally sound team will be forced to answer questions on the defensive end.
6. Beta Expect this team to run a series of complicated blocking schemes and high pick and rolls, while frequently falling into foul trouble. Despite the difficult transition from McBride Field to the MAC Court, this well-conditioned team will be fun to watch; those who look past them will regret it.TKO